12:04:48 RRSAgent has joined #wot 12:04:48 logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-irc 12:05:14 meeting: WoT Post-TPAC Meeting - Day 2 (Day 1 cancelled) 12:05:36 agenda: https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/F2F_meeting,_September_2022#Thursday.2C_September_22 12:06:05 chair: McCool 12:06:35 present+ Kaz_Ashimura, Michael_McCool, Ege_Korkan, Michael_Lagally, Sebastian_Kaebisch, Tomoaki_Mizushima 12:07:47 cris_ has joined #wot 12:08:32 present+ Ben_Francis, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Kunihiko_Toumura 12:09:05 ktoumura has joined #wot 12:09:11 topic: Opening 12:09:21 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/PRESENTATIONS/2022-09-hybrid-f2f/2022-09-21-WoT-F2F-Opening-McCool.pdf Opening slides 12:09:26 Mizushima has joined #wot 12:09:39 present+ Daniel_Peintner 12:09:40 dape has joined #wot 12:09:47 present+ Fady_Salama 12:11:01 q+ 12:11:26 Fady has joined #wot 12:11:31 McCool has joined #wot 12:11:32 ack k 12:12:02 mlagally_ has joined #wot 12:12:10 Ege: We are working with the JSON Schema Team 12:12:11 scribenick: Fady 12:12:25 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-ig/2022Sep/0012.html 12:12:53 ... We are working on a case study with them on how well we use JSON Schema 12:13:17 i/We are/topic: Marketing update on JSON Schema article/ 12:13:19 ... I sent an email with the article 12:13:57 ... I ask you to review it, the deadline is the 4th of October 12:14:33 Mccool: Any other updates? OPC UA can be considered an update 12:14:57 Sebastian: Yes, we had a meeting yesterday 12:15:21 i|Any other|topic: OPC UA Update| 12:15:24 ... we discussed the technical requirement document and made a resolution about the topics that are out of scope 12:15:35 i|Any other|-> https://www.w3.org/2022/09/15-wot-minutes.html OPC UA liaison minutes| 12:15:49 w 12:16:05 s|https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-ig/2022Sep/0012.html|| 12:16:22 i|We are working|-> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-wot-ig/2022Sep/0012.html Ege's message (Member-only)| 12:16:29 rrsagent, make log public 12:16:32 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:16:32 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:16:35 ... We will focus mainly on a WoT Consumer interacting with an OPC UA server, thus what needs to written in the binding 12:17:37 i|Any other|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/main/liaisons/opcf/tech_reqs.md Technical Requirements for OPC UA/WoT Collaboration| 12:17:40 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:17:40 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:18:08 ... The next steps is to clarify the formal situation and clarify the liason 12:18:20 s/next steps/next step/ 12:18:39 ... We still need to understand the OPC UA Group needs from us as an agreement 12:19:12 ... I thank all that paticipated last week as it showed the high interest in the joint ecosystem 12:20:04 Mccool: I think we need to update the liason readme 12:20:26 topic: CG/Marketing Split 12:20:52 Ege: I will start to describe why we want to split 12:21:30 ... We recognize that CG and Marketing are 2 different entities 12:21:49 q+ 12:22:03 s/Marketing/IG Marketing/ 12:22:13 ... and that CG is not governed by W3C rules 12:22:36 s/rules/Process/ 12:22:42 s/W3C/the W3C/ 12:22:53 q+ 12:23:27 ... We plan to migrate marketing activities from the Marketing task force to CG 12:24:26 Mccool: We also need to define what the tasks of the Marketing Taskforce is 12:24:46 mlagally has joined #wot 12:25:16 q? 12:25:27 Ege: Yes. So I made a new repo for discussing which group takes which tasks 12:26:14 dreamb has left #wot 12:26:29 q+ 12:26:36 ack mc 12:28:05 Mccool: The focus I see here are social media matters, but I what I miss are event management such as plugfests, which is mainly a WG task 12:28:34 q? 12:29:00 Kaz: I am sorry Ege, but it seems I failed to convey my point. 12:29:13 q+ 12:29:44 ack k 12:29:58 ... You should not start with such a detailed plan, but rather a high level plan 12:30:24 s/convey my point/make you understand my points about this/ 12:30:50 q+ 12:30:58 ack ml 12:31:08 lagally: I have a problem with the high level understanding of the problem 12:31:39 ack c 12:32:14 Cris: To answer Kaz, we will plan a resolution about what the CG should be doing 12:33:16 Ege: A simple example: on twitter should we have one official account and one CG account? 12:34:21 another example: Given a CG, do we need 2 documentation websites? 12:34:23 s|high level plan|high level expectation. If you and the whole CG really would like to transfer part of the WG/IG pages to the WoT CG, please make an official resolution of the whole WoT CG first before starting concrete transfer plan. Then we as the whole WoT WG/IG to generate an official resolution for the transfer. Then we should talk with the W3M about the transition request.| 12:34:37 q? 12:34:39 q+ 12:35:19 ml: why are we discussing transferring the WoT WG/IG contents to the WoT CG? 12:36:10 lagally: I believe that the official website will be maintained by the WG and the CG will have a lot of work on their hands 12:36:43 s/maintained by the WG/maintained by the IG/ 12:37:03 Ege: But then you implicitly agree that there could be 2 versions one that will be maintained by the CG and another that runs the risk of noth being maintained 12:37:04 s/maintained by the IG/maintained by the WG + IG/ 12:37:33 s|transition request.|transition request. I'm not objecting to that idea itself. Also it could be possible. However, we need to make official resolution on both the CG side and the WG/IG side.| 12:37:53 s/by the WG/by the WG,/ 12:38:00 Mccool: The risk with the WG is that the it has a limited life span. 12:38:17 s/by the IG/by the IG,/ 12:38:20 q? 12:38:24 ack m 12:38:26 q+ 12:39:26 Ege: I just see a conflict of interest between the WG and CG and the WG hindering the CG 12:39:50 q+ 12:39:53 sebastian has joined #wot 12:40:16 ack k 12:40:27 Kaz: I am confused because Ege already started witha detailed plan on next steps but Cris actually saying that there is still a resolution to be made 12:40:36 q+ 12:40:42 ... I ask the CG to think what they want to do first 12:40:49 s/witha/with a/ 12:42:23 s|I ask|If the CG really want to transfer the current WoT IG/WG's work to the WoT CG, we need to follow some specific procedure. So I've been asking/ 12:42:27 Mccool: Ege, let's add all people in this meeting to the repo to be able to comment and we should start with a KISS principle by finding a minimal set of task 12:42:30 s/think/think about/ 12:42:34 q? 12:42:36 q? 12:42:42 ack mc 12:42:43 q+ 12:42:49 ... the question is what is the plan 12:43:00 rrsagent, make log public 12:43:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:43:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:43:13 q+ 12:43:48 ack m 12:43:56 ack ml 12:43:58 q+ 12:44:08 i/why are we/scribenick: kaz/ 12:44:18 i/I believe hat/scribenick: Fady/ 12:44:19 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:44:19 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:44:44 s/WG, + IG/WG+IG,/ 12:44:45 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:44:45 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:44:55 q? 12:44:59 q+ 12:45:33 i/I believe that the/scribenick: Fady/ 12:45:34 Ege: To clarify, I say that having duplicate resources would cause confusion and hurt the WoT image as a whole 12:45:48 i|i/I believe hat/scribenick: Fady/|| 12:45:51 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:45:51 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:45:53 q? 12:46:53 Sebastian: I am against returning to the time where we didn't have a webpage as we have now 12:46:56 ack seb 12:47:11 ... the wiki pages were not a good advertisment to the WoT 12:47:44 ... The current situation is a significant improvement 12:48:12 ... I would be against to have another presence that is only for the CG 12:48:56 +1 sebastiankb for more collaboration 12:49:01 ... I don't understand the feeling that there is a fight between the CG and WG 12:49:15 s|asking/ the CG|asking the CG| 12:50:10 ack m 12:50:11 ... I think both groups should work closely together and should agree on this 12:50:12 q+ 12:50:40 ... It would be nice to get the CG to be active and help the WoT WG 12:50:48 qq+ 12:51:01 s|If the CG really want to transfer the current|If the WoT CG just would like to work on items related to the WoT IG/WG's activity like the WoT-JP CG Mizushima-san described the other day, that's fine. However, if the CG really want to transfer the current| 12:51:02 ... maybe by offering a short video describing the WoT 12:51:15 ack ml 12:51:15 mlagally, you wanted to react to McCool 12:51:27 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:51:27 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:51:27 lagally: This is not about fights or older ways 12:51:44 ... It's about process and actual relationship between the groups 12:51:59 ... in WG we have specifc rules 12:52:09 ... CG can do anything 12:53:00 ... The agreement was anything CG does should be approved by WG+IG 12:53:28 ... My concern is CG would do everything without getting approval 12:54:31 cris: I want to answer Kaz, we are starting concrete resolution to speed up the process 12:54:35 ack c 12:54:38 ack k 12:55:01 ack k 12:55:08 point taken :) 12:55:15 kaz: I still find that you should focus about what the CG should actually be talking about in the first place 12:55:56 Mccool: We need to build a consensus so that we are all on the same page 12:56:17 ... we should agree on broader statements as Kaz suggests 12:56:36 topic: CR Transition Resolutions 12:57:04 Mccool: We have 2 documents for TD 1.1 and Discovery 12:57:28 ... we didn't see new issues for these documents 12:58:01 s|kaz: I still find that you should focus about what the CG should actually be talking about in the first place|kaz: I'd suggest you should start with a high-level question on what the CG participants want to do, e.g., what kind of information they want to describe to promote WoT, rather than transferring the existing WoT IG/WG pages themselves as a quick resolution./ 12:58:10 rrsagent, draft minutes 12:58:10 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 12:58:13 q? 12:58:16 ack m 12:58:37 topic: CR Transition Resolutions 12:58:46 q+ 12:59:20 subtopic: TD Issue #1691 12:59:48 q+ 12:59:53 q+ 13:00:10 ml: is there any way to specify error responses for actions? 13:00:35 lagally: This topic is about error payloads for actions 13:00:45 i|is there|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1691 Issue 1691 - Action - double check node-wot's error codes, are there error response payloads?| 13:02:05 q? 13:02:08 ack d 13:02:09 ack m 13:02:11 ack s 13:02:19 q+ 13:03:59 daniel: TD allows you to specify what error codes you are sending back 13:05:03 Mccool: I think the real question is: is it possible to specify error responses in the TD? which is possible with additionalResponses 13:05:51 ack s 13:06:20 ack m 13:06:32 Sebastian: Yes, the mechanism exist to document error codes but nothing specific to the TD spec 13:07:02 Ege: You can document the error codes but you cannot describe behavior 13:07:20 lagally: Yes, that's why we need Profiles 13:07:37 Mccool: Then this is resolved 13:09:19 (closed) 13:09:28 subtopic: Issue 1670 13:10:09 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1670 Issue 1670 - The proxy-to link relation type is not defined anywhere 13:10:21 present+ Andrea_Cimmino 13:10:24 Mccool: We can mark it as risk 13:11:35 ... I see a reason for the keyword to describe a shadow, but it is ambigous 13:11:42 s/as risk/at-risk 13:11:49 ... we need to add some explanatory text for it 13:12:13 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/issues/1670#issuecomment-1253690990 McCool's comment 13:12:55 ... We will mark this issue as editorial and as a security issue 13:13:32 ... All other issues are deferd 13:13:48 ... or are editorial 13:14:53 proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the current TD 1.1 editor's draft 13:15:25 proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the current TD 1.1 editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022 13:15:40 proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the TD 1.1 editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022 13:16:02 resolution: Proceed to CR transition with the TD 1.1 editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022 13:16:20 topic: Discovery Spec 13:16:22 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:16:22 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:16:55 s/CR Transition Resolutions// 13:16:58 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:16:58 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:17:14 Mccool: We have 5 issues that should be resloved 13:18:17 s/topic: CR Transition Resolutions/topic: Thing Description CR Transition/ 13:18:39 s/topic: Discovery Spec/topic: Discovery CR Transition/ 13:18:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:18:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:19:21 subtopic: Issue 257 13:19:30 s|s/CR Transition Resolutions//|| 13:19:35 rrsagent, draft minutes 13:19:35 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz 13:20:43 Mccool: This is an old issue. The intention is that TDs would not be modified except for enriched data, @context entries and ids 13:20:52 q+ 13:21:06 Ege: I just think that the assertion is too vague 13:21:16 i|This is an old|-> https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/257 Issue 257 - What part of a TD can a TDD modify| 13:22:12 Mccool: So you think we need to add assertion for specific things that cannot be changed? 13:22:49 Ege: I think that we should clarify it better but if it block the CR transition then I don't care that much 13:24:59 Mccool: We should add an assertion that states that unless explicitly specified, TD elements should not be changed 13:25:24 q? 13:25:37 proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the Discovery editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022, including the additional assertion noted in https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/257#issuecomment-1253706846 13:26:00 ack _C 13:26:02 ack _c 13:26:09 ack c 13:26:21 proposal: Proceed to CR transition with the Discovery editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022, including the additional assertion noted in https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/257#issuecomment-1253706846, and any changes needed to deal with name registrations 13:29:17 q? 13:29:21 resolution: Proceed to CR transition with the Discovery editor's draft as of 21 Sept 2022, including the additional assertion noted in https://github.com/w3c/wot-discovery/issues/257#issuecomment-1253706846, and any changes needed to deal with name registrations 13:30:17 mm: just wondering about the potential impact of the IANA registration 13:30:37 kaz: IANA registration is a separate procedure from the W3C Process itself, so should be OK. will check with PLH to make sure 13:30:47 i/just won/scribenick: kaz/ 13:30:50 scribenick: Fady 13:31:22 topic: Architecture CR Transition 13:33:55 q+ 13:33:55 Mccool: We don't have an idea about assertions, because every assertion is marked at-risk 13:34:20 dape has joined #wot 13:34:38 daniel: I tried to fill the manual.csv but I had a hard time understanding it 13:35:59 Mccool: Just mark everything you don't understand as not implemented so that we can see the progress 13:36:22 ack s 13:36:27 sebastian: I have the impression that not everyone knows that we are collecting manual.csv 13:37:15 q+ 13:37:22 ... We should set a deadline for people 13:38:15 Mccool: Also people should make PR against the data/input_2022 13:38:17 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/tree/main/data/input_2022/Architecture wot-testing/data/input_2022/Architecture/ 13:40:11 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-architecture/pull/839 wot-architecture PR 839 - add initial manual.csv for node-wot 13:41:17 q? 13:41:56 ... I think we cannot do a resolution today, but we should be able to do it the next 2 weeks 13:42:50 kaz: We should discuss what we kind of tests and strategy are needed for both Architecture and Profile specs 13:43:16 ack k 13:45:22 ... and maybe reuse assertions we already have from the TD spec for example for both of these specs 13:46:47 s|Profile specs|Profile specs. It is important t clarify which assertions and requirements from the Architecture spec to be tested by which assertions from which specifications including Architecture itself and possibly the other related specs like TD.| 13:48:12 s/... and maybe reuse assertions we already have from the TD spec for example for both of these specs/... potentially, we could reuse some of the assertions and test results from the other specs by referring to them./ 13:49:28 lagally: We need to convey where to put the csv 13:49:31 https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/tree/main/data/input_2022/Architecture/Results 13:49:56 https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/blob/main/data/input_2022/Architecture/template.csv 13:50:21 q? 13:50:23 Mccool: PRs should go in this directory: https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/tree/main/data/input_2022/Architecture/Results 13:50:23 q+ 13:50:38 ... the template is found here: https://github.com/w3c/wot-testing/blob/main/data/input_2022/Architecture/template.csv 13:51:06 kaz: We should clarify the expected procedure in a README somewhere 13:51:08 ack k 13:51:37 topic : CR Transition Profile 13:51:56 s/somewhere/somewhere. I think McCool has already generated some initial guidelines for the previous Testfests, so we can start with them./ 13:52:08 lagally: Today's Profile call took place 13:52:21 s/topic : CR Transition Profile/topic: Profile CR Transition/ 13:53:11 ... We have a couple of issue to close 13:53:43 ... Issues that will be closed in the next call are tagged with close tag 13:54:43 ... couple of issues are deferred 13:55:05 Mccool: There are 3 issues that need to be resolved 13:56:30 https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/pull/266 13:57:51 lagally: a couple of PRs are still standing, especially the sync vs async protocol bindings 13:58:22 Mccool:There are also a couple of editorial PRs 13:59:34 q+ 13:59:41 -> https://github.com/w3c/wot-profile/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22blocks+publication%22 Profile publication blockers 13:59:47 Mccool: Next week will be plugfest 14:00:09 ... mainly for Profile spec 14:00:19 -> https://www.w3.org/WoT/IG/wiki/WG_WoT_Architecture_WebConf#Schedule_.285_mins.29 Profile proposed schedule 14:00:19 q- 14:00:21 [[ 14:00:27 Sept 5-9: Determine Profile 1.0 Scope 14:00:27 Sept 12-16: Decide Profile 1.0 Scope 14:00:27 Sept 26-30 Plugfest / Testfest for Profile 1.0 14:00:27 Oct 3-7 Incorporate Plugfest/Testfest results, prepare CR draft 14:00:29 2 - weeks review 14:00:31 CR transition End Oct 14:00:33 ]] 14:00:40 topic: Tomorrow's agenda 14:01:05 [[ 14:01:05 Finalize CG/Marketing Responsibilities Split - Resolution (30m) 14:01:05 Finalize Deliverable Priorities for next charter (30m) 14:01:06 ]] 14:01:06 q? 14:01:17 [adjourned] 14:01:23 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:01:23 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/09/21-wot-minutes.html kaz